WEB Edition Published at Duke University:
HTML coding by Eric Albright, Eric.Albright@duke.edu
Masthead design by Dan Barkey, d-barkey@nwu.edu
| About BLAB |
|---|
CONTENTS
58.1: Query Response: Problems of Paying for Electronic Journals
From: David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library <dgoodman@pucc.princeton.edu>
There are several different classes of journals to consider:
1. For the most-used journals, especially those of interdepartmental interest, I do want to supplement the paper copy with an E-journal version, and am willing to pay a premium. (I hope the premium will be 10% or less, but I did pay Journal of Biological Chemistry's outrageous surcharge,at least for the first year).
2. But there is also a class of relatively little used but very bulky journals, where I would be wiling to replace the paper with electronic, provided there was assurance of archival access. At this library, these include such titles as Biochimica Biophysica Acta, Mutation Research, FEMS letters and its offshoots as the most obvious three (pun intended), and there are many others only slightly less voluminous. But in this case I absolutely will not pay any surcharge whatsoever, and in general expect a small discount (20%?). None of the relevant publishers seem to yet offer this option, especially for individual titles.
3. Then there are all the titles in the middle. Here I frankly do not think I really know yet what is desirable, and it will depend on the development of the system.
4. What is clear is that there is no prospect at all that I will be able to pay a total amount for journals more than the current amount, adjusted for general inflation only. Therefore I reject any extensive scheme which calls for increased payments (except for a very very few selected titles, for which I will need to compensate by title cancellations). The faculty for which I am responsible have made it clear that they are not willing to find the funding for us to pay an additional 25% or so for journals in general, and are equally unwilling to have us receive 1/3 fewer journals in order to get electronic access to the other 2/3. This is what I do not think the publishers yet understand.
Obviously, I am speaking for myself personally and not (necessarily) for the other subject selectors at Princeton, or the Princeton Library as a whole.
58.2: News: Digital Object Identifier
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:12:18 -0500
From: Melanie Wilson, Univ. of Iowa <melanie-wilson@uiowa.edu>
AAP INTRODUCES ELECTRONIC TAGGING SYSTEM FOR INTERNET The Association of American Publishers, in cooperation with the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, has developed a "digital object identifier" system that would make it easier for would-be users of electronic information to find out about the origin and ownership of the online material, and about copyright restrictions on its use. The voluntary system would enable users to "recognize intellectual property even on the fastest of highways," says a consultant who helped develop the system. The system is designed around a numeric tag that would be embedded in books, articles and even chapters. When users clicked on an icon, they would be transported to the information owner's home page, which would contain information for obtaining permission to use the work. The system would be maintained by a new, nonprofit D.O.I. Foundation, supported by fees from publishers. (Chronicle of Higher Education 3 Oct 97)
[Editor's Note: For more information, check out the DOI website: www.doi.org.]
58.3: News: Program Schedule for Coll. Dev. Section at MLA Philadelphia
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Virginia Lingle, Hershey Medical Center, Penn State U.
<LINGLE@SHRSYS.HSLC.ORG>
Wanted to update you with the latest information regarding the program planning for the Collection Development Section at the MLA annual meeting in Philadelphia.
Programs planned:
Sunday, May 24, 4-5:30 p.m. contributed paper session on selection models for electronic resources in col. dev.
Monday, May 25, 2-3:30 p.m. invited speaker session on peer review in the electronic age with speakers from the media, a journal publisher, and libraries.
Tuesday, May 26, 10:30-12 noon joint session with the Technical Services Section with invited speakers discussing the management of Internet resources, licensing, etc.
Many of the specific details are in place, some aspects still need to be finalized; so, if you have further suggestions, comments, questions, I welcome them. We are looking for speakers for the third session - any suggestions?
The program committee consists of:
Jo Anne Boorkman, Barbara Schader, Paul Wrynn, Ione Auston, and myself.
58.4: Query: Standing Orders from Society Publishers
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:30:37 -0600
From: Jon Eldredge, Univ. of New Mexico
<jeldredg@biblio.unm.edu>
In 1994 we were approached by the American Nurses (Association) Publishing about setting up a standing order plan to ensure we would receive all of ANA's publications automatically rather than piecemeal as we learned about their existence. We had a similar plan with the National League for Nursing (NLN) so we gave it a try. After a couple of years we started to notice that we were not receiving all ANA publications, and lately I have learned from our serials unit that we simply have not received any ANA or NLN publications in recent months. Two questions: (1) have any other libraries noticed a similar pattern; and (2) has any- one ever figured out a reliable method for learning about and then receiving ANA or NLN publications? Our College of Nursing likes for us to have these publications, but we certainly invest a lot of energy in these endeavors with little tangible return.
58.5: Caveat: Unsolicited "Review" Copies
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:02:13 -0600
From: Melanie Wilson, Univ. of Iowa <melanie-wilson@uiowa.edu>
[Reprinted from Medlib-l:]
>From: Barbra Rosenberg <Barbra.Rosenberg@PAREXEL.COM>
Subject:
Unsolicited copies of Merck Index on CD-ROM-WARNING!
>This is being sent out as a friendly warning to people. If you receive a copy of the Merck Index, 12 edition (1996) on CD-ROM, with an invoice for $265.65, be aware that this has been sent to you as a "review copy" from the Sales Office of Thomson Publishing, and you are under no obligation to pay the invoice. Furthermore, if you contact their Customer Service Department (1-800-865-5840 -- it's not listed on the invoice), you can request that a mailing label be sent to you so you can return the CD-ROM at no cost to you.
>What I find most annoying about this sales practice is that there is no letter explaining the above included in the package, nor is there any indication on the invoice that this is a review copy. When I opened the package, after confirming that I hadn't ordered it (it's easy to think you might have!), I had to go to the Net, do a search on the publisher, click through their home page to find the Customer Service number, call it, and wait through a voice mail menu before I uncovered the real story. It may have only been 10 minutes of my time, but since I hadn't initiated any of this, I really resent it!
>In addition, since I have only been at my job for less than 4 months, I really wonder how they obtained my address here, since it is not published anywhere outside of the Boston area -- except as my signature file on these listservs.
>I was given the name of George Hoare as the contact in the Sales Division responsible for this project. I have left him a message stating my complaints, and asking for him to return my call to explain how he obtained my name. I also informed him that I would be posting this message to these listservs.
>Instead of "Buyer beware", it should be "Potential buyer beware!"
[Editor's Note: BLAB Readers will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that libraries are under no obligation to return unsolicited material. And in fact libraries might help put a stop to this annoying practice by NOT returning the material, even though some extra correspondence may be required to stop the follow-up invoices.]
58.6 Caveat: Reprinting of Aesthetic Rhinoplasty
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:09:06 -0400
From: Dee Boggan, Medical University of South Carolina
<boggandm@musc.edu>
We have received AESTHETIC RHINOPLASTY by Jack Sheen from our approval vendor. It is a 2-vol set published by Quality Medical Publishers, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri, 2nd edition, 1998. Price $250.00. ISBN 1-57626-87-9. According to the title page the previous edition copyrighted 1978 by C.V.Mosby Company. This is really a reprint, not a new edition. We have in our collection the exact same 2-vol. set published in 1987, by Mosby as the 2nd. edition. It appears to be page per page the same text as the 1987 one! We can't find anywhere in the new 1998 copy any mention that it is a reprint of the 2nd edition.
58.7: News: Faxon Institute Conference Announcement
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:34:09 -0500
From: Adrian Alexander, Faxon <alexander@faxon.com>
The Faxon Institute's Second Annual Colloquium on Scholarly Communication Issues
January 7-8, 1998
Hotel Intercontinental
New Orleans, Louisiana
The scholarly communication process is undergoing significant change as paper-based publishing continues to be supplemented, and in some cases supplanted, by emerging electronic technologies. As electronic publishing becomes more prevalent, issues related to the creation, distribution, ownership and the economics of scholarly information are challenging all parties involved in the process, including scholars, publishers, vendors, librarians and academic administrators.
The Faxon Institute's Colloquium on Scholarly Communication Issues series seeks to provide a forum in which all interested parties can participate in a provocative, but reasoned dialogue that can lead to a better overall understanding for everyone of these complex issues.
PROGRAM FORMAT
The focal point of the colloquium is a highly-interactive series of roundtable discussions which enable the participants to engage in a dialogue on a variety of key issues related to the scholarly communication process. Roundtables are scheduled consecutively throughout the day (Thursday, January 8) so that attendees can select one roundtable in which to participate and still be able to observe the remaining roundtable sessions from the audience.
Attendees are not required to participate in a roundtable but can, instead, observe the program proceedings and ask questions at the end of each session. (Each of these roundtables is moderated by an experienced facilitator.)
SPEAKERS
Dr. Stanley Chodorow, Provost, University of Pennsylvania, will set the stage for the roundtable discussions on Thursday, January 8 with a talk on intellectual property issues and scholarly publishing from the perspective of a chief academic officer who is involved actively in shaping the academy's position on these issues.
Mr. Robert Siegel, co-host of National Public Radio' popular news program, "All Things Considered", returns again this year to moderate the roundtable discussions.
WHO SHOULD ATTEND
The colloquium series is designed for research library managers and administrators, scholarly publishing executives and editors, researchers who create scholarly information, and chief academic officers and other administrators who develop policies related to the creation and management of scholarly information. The colloquium is highly beneficial for anyone involved in the scholarly communication process who wants to understand more fully the challenges and constraints faced by other members of the community.
PROGRAM OUTLINE
Wednesday, January 7 - Opening reception, dinner, and keynote address (speaker to be announced)
Thursday, January 8 - Opening remarks and roundtable discussions
Opening remarks - Dr. Stanley Chodorow, Provost, University of Pennsylvania
Roundtable #1 - Electronic Publishing and the Scholarly Communication Process
Roundtable #2 - Emerging Intellectual Property Models
Roundtable #3 - Evolution of Licensing Models for Electronic Information
Roundtable #4 - Funding Issues and Scholarly Information
REGISTRATION INFORMATION
The conference registration fee of $295.00 includes opening reception and dinner on Wednesday, January 7; colloquium participation, continental breakfast, lunch, and closing reception on Thursday, January 8. For more information, contact Adrian W. Alexander, The Faxon Institute, alexander@faxon.com. Or visit the Faxon Institute on the Web at http://www.faxon.com/html/ind-fi.html for a copy of the registration form.
HOTEL INFORMATION
The Faxon Institute's Colloquium on Scholarly Information Issues will be held at the Hotel Intercontinental, 444 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70130. The Faxon Institute has secured the hotel's ALA Midwinter Conference rate of $125 single/$138 double, so ALA attendees can secure an excellent rate at an outstanding hotel for the duration of both meetings. For reservations, contact the hotel directly at 800-445-6563 and identify yourself as a Faxon Institute participant. The hotel is in the heart of the New Orleans business district, with easy access to the Convention Center, other hotels and the French Quarter.
58.8: Follow-up: Gordon & Breach Law Suite
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997
From: Marisa Westcott, Gordon & Breach
<marisa.westcott@gbhap.com>
[Editor's Note: In the interest of equal time, here is the G & B response to the American Institute of Physics statement that was published in the last issue of BLAB. Real gluttons for punishment will also want to look at the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues, issue no.192, for AIP's response to what follows, and issue no.195 with news of a new lawsuit-related Web site, mirrored at Stanford and Yale Universities: barschall.stanford.edu and www.library.yale.edu/barschall].
Following, please find a summary overview statement which we hope will answer many of the questions that have been asked over the years regarding Gordon and Breach and the AIP/APS.
After several questions raised to us, we'd like to clarify the background and reasons why we are appealing the recent decision by the U.S. District Court in New York not to grant us injunctive relief in Gordon and Breach v. American Institute of Physics/American Physical Society.
As in previous court decisions in other countries, the U.S. court acknowledged that G&B had shown there are superior procedures for determining a journal's cost-effectiveness. The judge also said that he would have "serious concerns" if AIP/APS were to assert that Barschall's methodology proved AIP/APS products superior in value or quality. Indeed, the court noted that "Defendants apparently now acknowledge that Barschall's analysis does not demonstrate abstract product superiority or quality."
Similarly, the German court previously stated that it is "highly questionable whether a ound conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of scientific journals can be derived from a statistical analysis of 'cost per character' in relation to the number of citations." The Swiss court also held that it is "quite questionable whether 'cost per character' can, in fact, make any statement at all about the scientific value of a physics journal and its significance to research and teaching."
In short, no court has ever held that the Barschall methodology is a valid measure of value, quality, or overall cost-effectiveness. In fact, the study's attempt at comparison was based on the formula : (Cost per Thousand Characters) divided by (SCI's Impact ) to achieve the Cost/Impact figure that Barschall used to rank Publishers. The gravest error was manifested in the divisor of the SCI Impact. 7 out of our 11 journals included in the survey do not have SCI Impact figures available, although they are cited journals. These 7 journals are not research journals, i.e. the type of journals not carried by SCI, yet they were included in the table ranking of publishers by Cost/Impact. This means that, for these seven journals, the Cost per Thousand Characters was divided by Zero, resulting in an obviously meaningless figure.
The French court found in favor of G&B, stating that AIP/APS," by publishing in their journals articles which, in scientific guise, have as their goal the denigration of competing journals by representing them as more expensive and less influential than those published by themselves, committed acts of unfair competition by illegal comparative advertising, for which they must make reparation."
We'd like to offer our response to the questions about this case that have been raised many times in past years.
1. Why didn't G&B just publish its opinion, with its own supporting data, about Barschall's methodology, and let the readers of the survey decide on its validity? In other words, why can't we respond in an open forum of academic debate?
Opinion and supporting data, no matter how true, could not compete with the imprimatur of scholarly research afforded the Barschall study as a consequence of its publication in Physics Today as unbiased academic research. As decided by the French court, the Barschall study was in fact an advertisement for its journals published in the form of an unbiased academic research study. Documents presented in the U.S. court clearly show close collaboration between Barschall and the AIP/APS business officers to construct and publish the study during the years they were forced to increase their subscription rates and in time to enclose with subscription renewals. Unlike a normal academic study, Barschall's survey was never subject to peer review. All the courts clearly recognized that AIP/APS used the Barschall surveys for promotional -- that is, commercial-- purposes. This would be tantamount to a company like Kraft being made to be content simply to advertise its own response to an ad by, say, General Foods that included not only wrong data in its comparison of their products, but which was also presented as a health study authored by a renowned health specialist. The Lanham Act protects against this kind of unfair, false comparative advertising, and we are striving only for fair representation in any comparison that is targeted to our common market. Non-profit societies are not exempt from the Lanham Act when they promote their products.
2. Why did G&B find it so important to respond to the survey?
Upon its publication and distribution, there was immediate and widespread interest among many who expressed concern about pricing with reference to the Barschall study. We place great weight on the response from our subscribers, especially from the decision makers of major academic institutions. We faced a mounting negative reaction resulting from a survey which we know to be a misrepresentation of the value of journals to our readers. In the past, we viewed the societies and commercial publishers as complementary to one another since their publications supported the general advancement of the physical sciences, and commercial publishers devoted their efforts toward creating the forums for new, smaller, areas of research that may ultimately expand to major disciplines like liquid crystal research. The survey created a false impression of the value of journals which we believe adversely affects the dissemination of scientific knowledge. We also saw the likelihood of acceptance by the distinguished membership of the AIP/APS of a methodology endorsed by the publishing division of its own society.
3. Will G&B address the complaint that it is trying to restrict adverse commentary on its pricing and publishing policies?
That our legal attempts at self-defense have been labeled by our opponents as litigious and an attempt to censure comment is purely self-serving and unworthy of those who favor a fair, yet competitive business climate. We have carefully restricted our complaints to those who have used wrong information and yet have urged boycotts against our publications based on this information. We had no other choice but to make clear that intentionally using this misinformation in this way is wrong, unfair, and, ultimately, illegal. We were obligated to protect our business, editors and employees, just as any business unfairly faced with boycotts would do. Moreover, the trial showed there were only a few such instances over a ten-year period, hardly constituting a pattern of suppressing comment. As we showed at the trial, in these instances G&B was correcting misinformation about its prices, as a result and impetus from its academic editors, not from a non-existent corporate policy to stifle debate.
Further Background:
Although this dispute began with the refusal of our request for correction of incorrect prices and page counts regarding our journals, it soon became a serious question about the methodology used in a study designed as an infomercial for society journals. This was immediately apparent by the inclusion of our 7 non-SCI journals in the ranking of publishers, as though they had SCI figures to use in the Cost/Impact formula, and, moreover, that this formula, touted as the most significant measure of the journal's cost-effectiveness, was based on SCI's impact factor when SCI covers only about 5% of the world's journals and does not calculate an impact factor for all journals that are covered. Lastly, all experts at the trial testified that the only effective cost comparison was with similar journals covering the same audience, and that one couldn't compare a journal with broad coverage of many specialties against one which covers only one. If the competitive goal is realizing the demise of commercial journals, then there is no cost-effectiveness if a specialist must subscribe to thousands of irrelevant pages to get those few pages relevant to his/her area.
| The BIOMEDICAL LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS BULLETIN (ISSN: 1064-699X) is published
by the Medical Library Association's Collection Development Section with
the cooperation of the University of Southern California Norris Medical
Library. BLAB is published more or less monthly, and includes items of
news and opinion contributed by its readers concerning biomedical library
acquisitions.
Editor: David H. Morse: dmorse@hsc.usc.edu. Paper mail: USC Norris Medical Library, 2003 Zonal Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90033. Telephone: (213) 342-1134. The BULLETIN is distributed free of charge, in electronic form only. Back issues of BLAB are available at http://colldev.mlanet.org/BLAB/ Requests for subscriptions and all editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor <dmorse@hsc.usc.edu>. |